Voting is Pointless because I have a strong-interest in Democracy

[Idaho]

@Pannonian - Heh. There is an element of that.

[Pannonian]

In my memory, there have been at least 2 independent MPs elected in England, one standing against corruption, one to highlight the NHS's issues, particularly hospitals in the candidate's constituency. If there are other pressing issues, no doubt other candidates independent of the main parties can be elected as well.

[Idaho]

In my memory, there have been at least 2 independent MPs elected in England, one standing against corruption, one to highlight the NHS's issues, particularly hospitals in the candidate's constituency. If there are other pressing issues, no doubt other candidates independent of the main parties can be elected as well.

The anti corruption candidate wasn't some average Joe. He was the senior political correspondent for one of the main tv channels.

The other was a doctor fighting an unpopular incumbent on a single issue platform of stopping the closure of the local hospital.

[Pannonian]

The anti corruption candidate wasn't some average Joe. He was the senior political correspondent for one of the main tv channels.

The other was a doctor fighting an unpopular incumbent on a single issue platform of stopping the closure of the local hospital.

They were without the party political machines of the main parties, yet gave their time to stand and were elected. IIRC some lady stood against Blair in 2005 as an independent and got several thousand votes, which gave her second place standing against an incumbent who was the PM of the country.

[Idaho]

The doctor was certainly a bottom up, hard-work-wins story deserving of praise. The anti corruption media insider media circus, much less so.

[Pannonian]

I remembered some details wrong, but not the salient ones. Reg Keys got over 4000 votes standing as an independent for the Sedgefield constituency in the 2005 election. Blair was elected with 24,000 votes, but Keys ran the Tory and Lib Dem candidates close. As a comparison, the UKIP candidate got 646 votes compared with Keys's 4252 votes.

[Idaho]

Thanks @Seamus Fermanagh for support more eloquent and comprehensive than I deserve.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thanks @Seamus Fermanagh for support more eloquent and comprehensive than I deserve.

I don't have to agree with you to "get" your point and to give it credit. Everyone deserves to be heard, and listened to.

In addition, your posts in the past have made it abundantly clear that -- however differently you may conceive the "proper" answers to be than I -- you really do care. Kudos sir.

[Beskar]

Whilst you may not agree with their policies. Both UKIP and the Tea Party are reactionary forces working within their respective political systems which is being backed by many non-typical voters and thus rendering respective change within their systems.

Democracy in process?

As for franchisement, you only get it when you work for it. When the women didn't have the vote, did they continue twiddling their thumbs? No, they got off their rears and campaigned for it, showing they were worthy and entitled to have their voices heard.

Whilst you dress it up eloquently, Seamus, it can paraphrased simply as: 'I don't feel like I am heard so I don't bother'. The solution to this is to make yourself heard. Therefore, the whole situation is a spiral, circular-logic. "I am not being heard, therefore I don't vote, I don't vote therefore I am not being heard", how does this cycle get broken? By making yourself heard and by voting, which makes government hear you.

Pannonian does touch on a common-trend called "Millennial Entitlement" but that is a different topic, in regards that it actually exists or not too.

[Montmorency]

Myself, I can only see two lasting possibilities in reform:

1. Compartmentalized hierarchy through anarcho-type decentralization (i.e. top-heavy and bottom-heavy)

2. Post-humanistic pure collectivism (i.e. collapse to a single level)

Voting as we conceive of it would only seem to figure in the first.

[Pannonian]

Myself, I can only see two lasting possibilities in reform:

1. Compartmentalized hierarchy through anarcho-type decentralization (i.e. top-heavy and bottom-heavy)

2. Post-humanistic pure collectivism (i.e. collapse to a single level)

Voting as we conceive of it would only seem to figure in the first.

What on earth does that mean?

If Idaho is disgusted by the disconnect between parliamentary parties and the general population, he can get involved in local government, where there is a shortage of willing candidates, and where just about everyone who wants to get involved can do so. It's also the shortest route between involvement and tangible results, with feedback being almost immediate. You want something done? Go and d it. The only limit is how much you can be bothered to do.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I see a lot of rather speculative character attacks (laziness, arrogance, etc), but very little in the way of actually addressing what Idaho or myself have said. An example of missing the point in this way can be seen below:

Whilst you dress it up eloquently, Seamus, it can paraphrased simply as: 'I don't feel like I am heard so I don't bother'. The solution to this is to make yourself heard.

The thing is that we don't reckon that engaging in the democratic process is the way to be heard. The problem isn't so much with the principle of democracy, as it is with the underlying social (and by extension, political) situation in this country. Since society is made up of competing interest groups who gain only from the loss of the other, a government can only really work for one such interest group, it can't represent or act on behalf of all society at once. Look at the 70's/80's - all the government on the left or right did was effectively wage a class war against the losing side from the most recent elections. Nothing has changed today, all that has happened is that the right now has free reign to do what it wants.

Recognizing that the problems with our democracy are systematic and thus choosing not to take part in it does not make my lazy or arrogant. As I said earlier, for my part I prefer engaging in civil society at a more grassroots level - far less combatitive and much clearer results.

[Idaho]

Next to each candidate on the ballot paper should be the words "and the status quo". The very act of voting is giving approval to the process and structure of our political system.

Am I just bitter because my voice isn't heard? Joking aside, no. I am a middle aged, middle class white man who earns well over the average salary. I am catered for very well by the status quo. I am not some downtrodden minority.

The technology of our political system is the problem. We could develop greater democracy. We could be innovative. But this would threaten the professional political class and creates uncertainty for their economic backers. Any change faces resistance of this most powerful alliance.

But the world is ours! It is not the elite's!